Odd that your tagline references the Constitution, yet you don't seem to understand it very well.

Money must equal free speech, or there is no free speech at all.

Let's examine a hypothetical. We've got two guys, Stu and Hank, who both want to run for mayor. Both of them announce their intention and do a few rubber-chicken dinners in pursuit of this goal.

Hank decides that's not reaching enough people, so he takes out an ad in the paper and distributes flyers throughout the city. Stu sees that this is reaching people and counters with radio ads. Hank responds with TV ads.

And so on. At what point does who, and under what authority, decide that Stu and Hank can't spend any more money on the campaign? How do you propose to limit the speech of newspaper writers, TV anchors, the guy on the street who talks up one candidate over another?

Just because I can buy a printing press and you can't doesn't mean I can't use it in support of a candidate I support. To believe otherwise would logically either a.) force me to not use my printing press or b.) buy you one as well (where does that money come from?).

Money enables free speech. You can shout in the woods all you want but it won't be very effective. You can print a million flyers and be more effective. One requires money.

Ferret

That isn't quite right, and you're conviniently forgetting the many Democrat hypocrites so you can bash Republicans.

Most of the Republicans who voted for this were swayed by the "free trade" aspects, viewing that as the most important thing. Generally speaking Republicans prefer open and free trade whereas Democrats prefer protectionism. Here Obama waves the free trade flag and they're duped into supporting him.

I wish they'd step back and listen to their constituents a bit more here. The mere secrecy surrounding this thing should be enough to garner 100% rejection.

Ferret

I'm sorry, but this literally had zero to do with infrastructure, crumbling or not.

Ferret

How would you "move away from money entirely"?

Ferret

They'll ignore it and make up "revised models", just like they ignored their previous predictions of an ice-free Arctic (the earliest I found was for the year 2000).

You can't argue with a Doomsday Cultist, and that's in effect what AGW has become....just another Doomsday Cult. No amount of fact, no failure of the world to melt will convince them.

Which really is too bad because I support much of what they want to do....move away from fossil based fuels as much as possible, diversify out our energy sources with solar and wind and tidal energy and nuclear, do some farming and livestock raising smarter/better, plant more trees. But they wrap it up in this redistributionist "end capitalism now" nonsense that just renders the rest of their message unhearable.

Ferret

DING DING DING!

Got it in one.

Ferret

That's not what the pesky evidence says:

http://news.discovery.com/eart...

Now you know better.

Ferret

Well said sir. Captured it perfectly.

Ferret

Really? I submit you're not listening very closely then.

Last summer there was a raft of "will the heat in Texas finally convince the deniers?" kinds of stories on NPR. I know because I have to ilsten to it coming down my canyon every morning (can't pick up AM in the canyon) and some mornings that was literally all they talked about.

Fox on the other hand did a great job of presening the whole story. That's probably what Alarmists don't like.

Ferret

As Odin is my witness I swear we'll have a burst of "Atlanta is hot; proof of global warming at last" style headlines again this summer.

Alarmists like to continually claim "weather != climate" but seem to forget that readily enough once some city sets a heat record.

Ferret

> Not really. Most often one side or the other in an argument is actually correct.

I find this to rarely be the case.

Ferret

A good way to start trying to convince people would be to stop insulting them because they disagree with you.

The term "denialist clowns" doesn't particularly make me want to take anything you say too awful serious. I might even toss back that you're an AGW cultist and then we're just calling each other names rather than listening to each other.

Just a thought.

Ferret

But you're taking one thing out of context. They have many flaws besides being anti nuclear, nor did I claim that not being perfect was a disqualifier of anything.

Qutie frankly they disqualified themselves from the conversation decades ago. Alarmists are always willing to throw Skeptics under the bus for the slightest mistake or undisclosed conflict, yet they make excuses when an organization like Greenpeace damages a world treasure or flat rejects a proven, sustainable, dense power source. They specifically are cowards unwilling to actually fight for their beliefs, preferring instead the power of regulation and to skulk around dragging banners across ancient archeological sites.

Ferret

How so?

Ferret

This is true; thank you for that link.

(And if it wasn't something that didn't represent the beliefs of most Alarmists, how come I never see Alarmists calling out such trash and apologizing for it when it happens? Skeptics sure seem to have to apologize for every nutter who doesn't believe in AGW.)

Ferret